Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Space Badger's Reaver's Deep (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
-   -   [SBRD] Prep: setting discussion (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=30664)

aramis July 25th, 2013 02:36 AM

Note that several forms of Wiki software are available, and if one has some web-space, one can set up a Wiki with required authentification to post, and a copyright notice on every page.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 446368)
Note that several forms of Wiki software are available, and if one has some web-space, one can set up a Wiki with required authentification to post, and a copyright notice on every page.

Well, I have web-space. Would these be the kinds of wiki that tjoneslo mentioned the added workload of keeping spammers out of? I don't really have time for that - if I did, I'd volunteer to help out here. :)

Do you know if they have different access settings for reading info, so that I could have GM info not visible to players? That is the main thing that I liked about the Obsidian Portal thing, plus it is already set up, but if we could save the money that would be better.


Edit: I used to be pretty good w web design, back in the mid-90s when a fancy page was one that included some SSIs or perl scripting to build the page on the fly. I haven't kept up at all w web 2.0 tech, and current meds make holding and comprehending anything above moderate complexity very difficult, even painful as it usually triggers an actual headache (not just a figure of speech).

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 03:38 AM

New Blog Post, w some info on the Point-Buy system that is one of the options for chargen in this campaign, plus some info on research I've been doing into our campaign setting.

Expect to begin play in about two weeks, if everyone has their characters ready and we have the ship ready. The background setting obviously won't be complete, but we will have enough to start the first adventure!

tjoneslo July 25th, 2013 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446367)
Like you said, not a big deal until it is. Not crazy about blindly releasing whatever we create for this campaign. We might want to do something with it someday.

And the advertising most free sites impose on your pages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446367)
Otherwise I don't know how I'd separate out GM notes that the players should not be seeing. There will be a lot of unknown or partially known areas in this campaign (set during the Long Night), and it would spoil things if the players saw that material too soon.

This is something that most wiki software, mediawiki in particular, is poor at doing. That is, making some things available to everyone but other articles with limited read access. This is not specific to the Traveller Wiki, but to wikis in general.

I know of a way to do this in the Traveller Wiki mediawiki, but I'd like to be convinced this would be of benefit to more than just one group. My general minimum is three.

I might also suggest something like Google docs, which makes it easy to share (or hide) documents of various types. But it's not a wiki, and has it's own limitations.

atpollard July 25th, 2013 10:17 AM

Strictly my opinion, but KISS (keep it simple son*).
WIKI = too much work for too little gain.

Less time reading/writing walls of text = more time to actually adventure.

Since SpaceBadger is a MOOT member, he may soon get a game forum to moderate over ... then he can create a reference topic and lock it, making it "read only" for game data.**

* that's not the real word, but we have Rule #1 :)

** Secrecy is over rated. In my experience, the real trick with PbP is dealing with player attrition and keeping the game moving forward.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 446396)
WIKI = too much work for too little gain.

Umm, no, it's not.

This game was requested to be at least semi-sandbox, which means at least someone on your team needs to read library data about the systems around you and decide where to go.

If I have to spoonfeed all the data, it will still be ignored by most, plus it is another form of railroading- go here, do this. Not very sandbox.

If I put all the library data on other systems and such in a wiki or something, then at least whoever is interested in planning and figuring things out can read it whenever they feel like.

Even if you guys never use it or add anything to it, it would be a big help to me.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjoneslo (Post 446393)
I know of a way to do this in the Traveller Wiki mediawiki, but I'd like to be convinced this would be of benefit to more than just one group. My general minimum is three.

I don't understand this sentence. Expand, please?

LiNeNoiSe July 25th, 2013 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446364)
That sounds about right, and your idea is fine with me. What do other group members think? For eight players that would be $5 each, then I'd kick in the "campaign fee" which I think is $5 or $10. The Obsidian Portal wiki and other features would be a big boost to our campaign, I think.

No thanks. My computer is too old. I'm not paying for something I probably can't use.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNeNoiSe (Post 446452)
No thanks. My computer is too old. I'm not paying for something I probably can't use.

OK, I understand not wanting to pay, and that is your right, but your justification makes no sense, so I wonder if we have a failure to communicate. This is not graphics-intensive, it is a wiki, something anything with a web-browser can read. You can read Wikipedia, right?

LiNeNoiSe July 25th, 2013 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 446396)
Strictly my opinion, but KISS (keep it simple son*).

I'm with you. I signed up for a text-based game right here.

Back in the BBS days, we were lucky to get all players to reply twice a week.

LiNeNoiSe July 25th, 2013 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446454)
OK, I understand not wanting to pay, and that is your right, but your justification makes no sense, so I wonder if we have a failure to communicate. This is not graphics-intensive, it is a wiki, something anything with a web-browser can read. You can read Wikipedia, right?

Parts of this computer are over 15 years old. Wikis usually have some lame-assed javascript that my browser can't handle. I don't need the aggravation.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNeNoiSe (Post 446456)
Parts of this computer are over 15 years old. Wikis usually have some lame-assed javascript that my browser can't handle. I don't need the aggravation.

That is probably part of the advertisements for ad-based wikis. The substance of a wiki is just a bunch of text w links to other text, the very most basic kind of HTML. The trick is in the construction of it and indexing those pages, but the user has no need to get involved w that.

Anyway, I am still trying to follow up on suggestions by Aramis and tjoneslo about ways to do this for free, or if not maybe we can still finance the Obsidian Portal wiki w those who support the idea.

I believe there is even some wiki software that I would run on my machine to generate the HTML pages, then I would just upload page updates when I have stuff to add. For the reader it would be like reading web-text from 18 years ago, just better organized and cross-linked.

DaveChase July 25th, 2013 05:30 PM

Here if there is a slight cost to setup then maybe, but else where is a no go for me.

Just personal preference.

Dave Chase

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446468)
Here if there is a slight cost to setup then maybe, but else where is a no go for me.

Just personal preference.

And I don't have any argument w that.

Sigh. I guess I am going to have to learn some kind of software to make the wiki part totally transparent to users, as I really think that is the way to go for Library Data.

Also, it appears that even for the free users (players) they would have to create accounts w Obsidian Portal and log in to read the wiki, which I can see would be a barrier to use for some (probably me, if I hadn't already tried it before).

I'll see what I can do on figuring out something free and easy to use.

tjoneslo July 25th, 2013 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446404)
I don't understand this sentence. Expand, please?

Sorry, I'm being too terse. I'd be more than happy to do the administrative work to configure the wiki to allow campaign logs, campaign background rules, and even sandboxing. The catch-22 is I'll only do it if I'm sure there are people who are going to use it. My default rule of thumb for admin work is three people need it. That way if one or two decide differently, it's still useful work for someone.

If you are really interested in having me do the administrative work for a campaign wiki on the Traveller Wiki, let me know what, in specific detail what you want. I'd love to trade for some design work to make the wiki a little less generic.

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 06:58 PM

New Blog Post, w cool stuff about Reaver's Deep sector and why I think y'all are really going to enjoy campaigning there!

Once Sabredog and I get the details of the ship hammered out - and a deckplan! - we'll be counting down the days until I have enough prepared for y'all to start playing - so we need those characters! I will fill out the crew w NPCs for any slots that are lacking, but I need to know who we have as PCs before I can start on that.

If you've already decided on a character, please email or PM me the full character sheet so we can make sure nothing conflicts w the setting, then you can post your "public" char sheet with what you want the other players to know about your PC.

If you haven't made or decided on a PC yet, please read the post I made earlier today in the Characters thread, trying to explain the chargen process for this game and how it may differ from chargen in other Traveller games you have played. (And please don't worry about making a character who gains a ship in mustering out! I have already warned Sabredog that his Hampton Rhodes may be sharing ownership shares in this ship w one or more others of the crew.)

Get ready; it's coming! ETA two weeks for your ship to arrive in-system! Adventure awaits!

sabredog July 25th, 2013 07:04 PM

The ship plans will be done tonight - scanned and off to you shortly after. Just tweaking the design and painting the shark mouth on the nose.

What about the programs for the Model 3, and what is in the ever-capacious goodie bag otherwise known as the Ship's Locker?

And are there weapons in the turrets and what kind?

SpaceBadger July 25th, 2013 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446481)
The ship plans will be done tonight - scanned and off to you shortly after. Just tweaking the design and painting the shark mouth on the nose.

Uh-oh! I didn't realized you were proceeding with those, had a few more points I thought we should discuss.

First, did you take into account what I posted in the blog about ship's fuel usage being halved, so that standard designs' tankage is good for two jumps, and for two months of power plant? I was thinking that we could keep the inflatable tank in the hold and the connections for drop tanks, but reduce some of the standard tankage to allow for more cargo and maybe a few more staterooms.

Second, I was wondering if it would be worth bumping this basic design up to 500 or 600 tons, to allow a shuttle of some kind to be carried, plus again more cargo/staterooms. I like the basic idea of the design, just was considering a little more capacity, and I noticed that it only has an air-raft, no launch or shuttle or cutter.

Want to send me what you have and we can talk it over some more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446481)
What about the programs for the Model 3, and what is in the ever-capacious goodie bag otherwise known as the Ship's Locker?

Computers and their programs were another aspect of Traveller that was glossed over in previous games I played or GMed. Any suggestions? Is Model 3 a good size for this class of ship? Needs to be able to fight occasionally in this setting, and also navigate uncharted ways without getting lost.

As for the Ship's Locker, I like the idea that it contains (1) whatever the players list ahead of time and have approved by the GM, plus (2) MAYBE other stuff that might be needed but not previously considered - MAYBE - by GM's ruling or die roll. In other words, if you really want to make sure you have essentials, better list them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446481)
And are there weapons in the turrets and what kind?

Oh yeah, you definitely want turrets on all three hard-points and weapons in those turrets. Standard mix? "Safe" systems are few and far between in this setting - even near civilized worlds, pirates may be lurking for likely looking prey.

Check out most recent Blog Post for more on this setting.

sabredog July 25th, 2013 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446482)
Uh-oh! I didn't realized you were proceeding with those, had a few more points I thought we should discuss.

First, did you take into account what I posted in the blog about ship's fuel usage being halved, so that standard designs' tankage is good for two jumps, and for two months of power plant? I was thinking that we could keep the inflatable tank in the hold and the connections for drop tanks, but reduce some of the standard tankage to allow for more cargo and maybe a few more staterooms.

OK, if fuel consumption is halved then if we keep a similar configuration for the tanks (J2+J1 collapsible reserve & power plant fuel) then we pick up 75 tons for cargo or whatnot. Plus another 18 tons if the collapsible reserve isn't used, but that would have to be only cargo space since it is the collapsible tank.

I think even for Reaver's Deep the current drives are a good idea to keep since I picked them for being able to adsorb damage without leaving the ship crippled too quickly. Like, it takes two hits to the J-Drive before it drops to Jump-1 and then its there for 3 more hits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446482)
Second, I was wondering if it would be worth bumping this basic design up to 500 or 600 tons, to allow a shuttle of some kind to be carried, plus again more cargo/staterooms. I like the basic idea of the design, just was considering a little more capacity, and I noticed that it only has an air-raft, no launch or shuttle or cutter.

Well, if its streamlined and lands then adding a small craft will use up that recovered cargo/stateroom space. Depending on what small craft we use we can put a couple of tons of cargo on it, but it won't be the containerized stuff - just that incidental small speculative cargo lot or two. So personally (and it is your game) I figure the small craft would be a waste on a trader this size.

If we make the ship a little bigger then we also increase the crew requirements ...so if we make it a 5-600 tonner we would probably need a steward for sure for passengers (with the actual skill), and definitely a real navigator.

I have a chart from one of the threads http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ad.php?t=10687 That has the missing odd numbered hull and drive potentials factored out and it'd work great for a 500 tonner. 600 would be even better for cargo - if we bump the drives up to at least F to get similar performance the fuel requirement would be only 45 tons more than on the 400 ton ship and with not much difference in drive space used. So we would net nearly 300 tons+ in cargo space plus some more staterooms. We could park a Type A in there. If we don't add the small craft.

I'll see what it actually inks out as and send it to you. The 400, 500, and 600 ton designs. maybe we could all vote on the one we think will make us rich (or at least keep us alive) faster?



Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446482)
Computers and their programs were another aspect of Traveller that was glossed over in previous games I played or GMed. Any suggestions? Is Model 3 a good size for this class of ship? Needs to be able to fight occasionally in this setting, and also navigate uncharted ways without getting lost.

A Model 3 would get the job done but if we increase the size of the ship we could put a bigger computer in there. As for how to handle it you could just use it the HG way and use the number as a generic DM for offense and defense...or if you wanna replicate the CT way I'd have the players (us) provide you with a set of SOP program loads for Offense, Defensive Measures, and that way they just tell you which is being swapped out during the respective fire or defend phases by whomever is running the computer.

In RL play I have the players use 3x5 cards with the program names and effects on them to lay out on the table during combat so we all know what it running and what is in storage. I like the program method because it gives the players something else to spend their money on, adds another layer of choices in tactical situations, and if the computer takes a hit it can make things more interesting depending on what programs survived or not. Which leads to spending more player money...

With this PbP method I would say do whichever was easier to keep track of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446482)
As for the Ship's Locker, I like the idea that it contains (1) whatever the players list ahead of time and have approved by the GM, plus (2) MAYBE other stuff that might be needed but not previously considered - MAYBE - by GM's ruling or die roll. In other words, if you really want to make sure you have essentials, better list them!

I say GM's ruling. Make a hard and fast list and we can fill it in from there. Survival kits, some vacc suits, tool kits, etc..



Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446482)
Oh yeah, you definitely want turrets on all three hard-points and weapons in those turrets. Standard mix? "Safe" systems are few and far between in this setting - even near civilized worlds, pirates may be lurking for likely looking prey.

Beam/Missile/Sand per turret? Or something heavier, like BSB, BSB, MMM? And how many turrets maximum? We need gunners for them - so unless we use some kind of turret slaving program we'd need a few more bodies. I think three turrets would be the sweet spot, I wouldn't say no to four, but no less than two. We are flying into harm's way, after all.

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446488)
OK, if fuel consumption is halved then if we keep a similar configuration for the tanks (J2+J1 collapsible reserve & power plant fuel) then we pick up 75 tons for cargo or whatnot. Plus another 18 tons if the collapsible reserve isn't used, but that would have to be only cargo space since it is the collapsible tank.

No, that isn't how it is meant to work. I guess I am still misunderstanding the fuel arrangements on your Frontier Freighter. If it needs the standard tankage to get one J-2 and one month PP, then that needs to stay. As I wrote in the blog post on 7/23:
Fuel usage is halved IMTU. This means that most standard ship designs carry enough fuel for two jumps at their maximum range, plus power plant fuel for two months. I think these are more appropriate for ships on a frontier where you may not find good fuel in your destination system. Ships dedicated to runs between core worlds and therefore assured of fuel at each end may be designed with reduced tankage to allow more cargo space, but that isn't the standard. (Emphasis added.)
This ship sure is not designed for any core world milk-run, so decreasing tankage would defeat the purpose of the rule. The inflatable tank needs to be bonus fuel, not relied on as part of standard tankage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446488)
Well, if its streamlined and lands then adding a small craft will use up that recovered cargo/stateroom space.

In my experience, ships operating on a frontier far from help can find a carried small craft a lifesaver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446488)
maybe we could all vote on the one we think will make us rich (or at least keep us alive) faster?

Well, I guess you can take a vote if y'all want to rely on the resources of the PCs to provide a ship - let's see, I think your guy received an A2 on mustering out? :devil:

But if I am supplying a ship to the group as GM for purposes of the campaign, we don't vote, because I need to make sure that the ship meets what I think will be necessary to complete some of the possible missions without a TPK due to some problem developing w the ship - and if I fudged rolls to not have any such problems when they could be reasonably foreseen, I'd be doing the kind of GMing that Aramis often complains about. :nonono:

Keep the setting in mind. Think of a frontier trading ship out on a Real Frontier with Real Pirates lurking around even the fringes of so-called civilized systems, and needing to be very self-reliant and not lose the whole crew due to some problem developing with the ship while in a system where there is No Help Available Any Time Soon.

A ship that can reasonably defend itself and that does not rely on only an air-raft for off-ship transport is a necessity in this kind of setting.

I like the concept of your design, but I guess we need to look at a 500 or 600 tonner, to carry an auxiliary shuttle or launch, plus extra cargo/staterooms, plus necessary increase in standard tankage.

But think of all the lovely hardpoints!!! :D


Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446488)
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger
As for the Ship's Locker, I like the idea that it contains (1) whatever the players list ahead of time and have approved by the GM, plus (2) MAYBE other stuff that might be needed but not previously considered - MAYBE - by GM's ruling or die roll. In other words, if you really want to make sure you have essentials, better list them!

I say GM's ruling. Make a hard and fast list and we can fill it in from there. Survival kits, some vacc suits, tool kits, etc.

No no no. :file_28: That isn't what I said; read it again. If y'all want to list items for the Ship's Locker, go right ahead, and then clear it with me. But I'm not making any list - if I am responsible for the Ship's Locker as GM, then whenever you want something out of it I will either rule on it or roll dice on it to see if what you want is actually in there. If y'all want to make sure some things are in the locker, you'll need to give me a list ahead of time - as in, before leaving the starport where the chandlers and other suppliers are located.

sabredog July 26th, 2013 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446508)
No, that isn't how it is meant to work. I guess I am still misunderstanding the fuel arrangements on your Frontier Freighter. If it needs the standard tankage to get one J-2 and one month PP, then that needs to stay. As I wrote in the blog post on 7/23:
Fuel usage is halved IMTU. This means that most standard ship designs carry enough fuel for two jumps at their maximum range, plus power plant fuel for two months. I think these are more appropriate for ships on a frontier where you may not find good fuel in your destination system. Ships dedicated to runs between core worlds and therefore assured of fuel at each end may be designed with reduced tankage to allow more cargo space, but that isn't the standard. (Emphasis added.)
This ship sure is not designed for any core world milk-run, so decreasing tankage would defeat the purpose of the rule. The inflatable tank needs to be bonus fuel, not relied on as part of standard tankage.

No, I understand, but I thought the purpose of redoing the tankage was to regain more cargo and stateroom space. The collapsible tank is built in as a reserve in case you needed to bridge a large gap is all - and it is located adjacent to one of the main tanks in the cargo hold so it can be collapsed. Which most of the time it will be.

Now if we are going into real frontier and need extra onboard fuel I would suggest leaving the tankage at a straight 80 tons for the jump drives (2x jump2) and the power plant fuel at 30. Drop the collapsible tank and rely on the two exterior drop tanks at 2x 40 tons. Those give us another 2 jumps at jump 2 each for a grand total if fully tanked up of 4 jumps at jump2 (8 parsecs). Powerplant fuel will last twice the four weeks that the 4 jumps will take. If we retain the drop tanks the jump number doesn't change, but our acceleration only drops to 2G. In a pinch dropping them might allow us to outrun a bad guy or recoup some performance from both drives if they are damaged and knocked down a rating.

They are not quite the useful reserve under your fuel rules that they are in the official ones, so the 40 tons from the collapsible tank can be switched to cargo capacity and either a small craft, just cargo, or add a couple of staterooms.....

Since having a small craft can be important in this campaign we could add a Launch (with a missile rack) and drop the air/raft, or even shift the air/raft to the Launch for use on any world we land it on. Total leftover space (after a Launch is added) is 134 tons. We can add more staterooms or leave that as cargo space.

A 500 ton ship with the same performance as the revised 400 ton one will have 190 tons of cargo space after we add a missile-armed Launch and 4 more staterooms. If we retain the drop tanks (100 tons) jump remains the same (2), but acceleration drops to 2G from 3G.

At 600 tons the leftover space is 295 tons. The performance drop for retaining the drop tanks gets us Jump 1 and 2G. Unless we increase the size of the Jump Drive which then knocks more off the leftover space, yada yada. IMHO the ideal use of drop tanks is to retain them so long as it doesn't seriously degrade jump performance, and drop them only in emergencies. In civilized space dropping them might not be a problem - replacements can be found at a cost, but can we rely on that in the Deep? Something tells me we shouldn't count on it.

I would say that the better of the choices would be the the 500 ton model since it retains the Jump-2 rating and only drops to 2G if the tanks are retained. That's a comfortable safety margin. We would get 5 hardpoints, a Launch, 4 more staterooms, and still have enough space in the hold to park a Type S and then some (figuratively of course). The 600 ton version is slower with the drop tanks retained but could have a lot of staterooms and cargo space. And maybe park a Pinnace or Cutter in the garage, too.

Both of the larger new designs have the bigger Model 4 computer, too. With nicer monitors and better ergonomics. Carpeting and wall coverings are extra.

And as Spacebadger pointed out: this ship is being designed to help us stay alive in all sorts of ways, and hopefully turn a profit while doing so. The drives are durable and retain their ratings for a while after taking damage, the thing has plenty of fuel, and plenty of firepower potential.
What do you all say? The faster 500ton model? 4 jumps of 2 each? With a missile-armed Launch and 14 staterooms? Or the slower (sometimes) 600 ton version with even more cargo space and staterooms?

Me: I vote for the faster 500 ton ship. Speed is life.

BTW: Do we get to have a fully armed turret on each hardpoint?



Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446508)
No no no. :file_28: That isn't what I said; read it again. If y'all want to list items for the Ship's Locker, go right ahead, and then clear it with me. But I'm not making any list - if I am responsible for the Ship's Locker as GM, then whenever you want something out of it I will either rule on it or roll dice on it to see if what you want is actually in there. If y'all want to make sure some things are in the locker, you'll need to give me a list ahead of time - as in, before leaving the starport where the chandlers and other suppliers are located.

Ok everyone, you heard the man: time to make out your wish lists!

DaveChase July 26th, 2013 09:41 AM

I like the bigger cargo bays in this frontier/rebuilding atmosphere. Why, because we might be one of the few ships that can haul that large construction equipment or agriculture equipment that those new and rebuilding worlds need.

Which would allow for some tonnage in the nooks of the ship for some speculative cargo also.

Dave Chase

DaveChase July 26th, 2013 11:05 AM

Maybe something else to consider if this is a rebuilding, frontier like area

The ship has medical bay, not just a medical kit, for when we are planet side or in orbit to help out for those smaller pop worlds or the poorer ones.

The ship also carries regularly; plant seeds, medicine (in bulk) and machine/shop parts.
The ship also has a dedicated machine shop (again for planet assistance besides ship use)

Not that I want the ship to be subsidized to any government or megacorp, but as a free trader that wants to build up a solid rep, we could fill in the voids a bit.

Possibly have a few low berths for those medical emergency that need to be taken to actual hospital.

If we are going to be dealing with Aslan or other non-human races, Can I have the prime non-alien race language as a skill-0?

I can explain why I have it at skill-0 because of my one level of xeno medic skill (Medic skill 4, 3 standard, 1 xeno)

Dave Chase

samuelvss July 26th, 2013 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446552)
The ship has medical bay, not just a medical kit, for when we are planet side or in orbit to help out for those smaller pop worlds or the poorer ones.
. . . .
The ship also has a dedicated machine shop (again for planet assistance besides ship use)

Not that I want the ship to be subsidized to any government or megacorp, but as a free trader that wants to build up a solid rep, we could fill in the voids a bit.

Possibly have a few low berths for those medical emergency that need to be taken to actual hospital.

I agree, but these would be not just part of building a rep, but a source of revenue as well.

Some passenger traffic might likewise be the locals paying to bring an expert in to solve some problem.

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 04:12 PM

Wow, sabredog, thank you very much for running all of those numbers on larger ship designs! I would not have thought of carrying the drop tanks along, to drop only when extra accel is needed! That is a great idea!

I think you are right that the 500 ton version is ideal; I don't see that you get much more advantage from the 600 other than more cargo area, and as wandering tramp Free Traders you might not very often be able to fill the cargo hold that you would have w the 500. I think you will find situations where it would be nice to have both Launch and air-raft.

Good work! Thanks!

Re having turrets on all hardpoints: How about having three turrets from your previous working life w this ship in slightly more secure areas? That gives you something to do w money you earn out here in the Deep, getting refitted w two more turrets out here where more turrets might be more acceptable, and not raise eyebrows and suspicion that you might be pirates yourselves.

Y'know, with all of these characters w space skills, I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet w Gunner. Looks like we may need a few NPCs for that (I know ATPollard hasn't finalized his guy, but he is already slated as Engineer and Steward - his battle station is probably in the drive room)

Would you want to slave all turrets to one control and have only one Gunner? Can civilian ships do that, or only military? Hmm, I'm the GM - I guess if that is usually only for military ships, that might be another refit that would be reasonable to seek out here in the Deep.

rancke July 26th, 2013 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446591)
Y'know, with all of these characters w space skills, I'm not sure I have seen anyone yet w Gunner. Looks like we may need a few NPCs for that (I know ATPollard hasn't finalized his guy, but he is already slated as Engineer and Steward - his battle station is probably in the drive room)

NPC henchmen -- or horseholders, as they're known in my gaming group -- are among the most useful pieces of equipment an adventuring party can have. Staying behind to guard the ship, doing the boring stakeout, running errands -- anything players don't have fun having their characters doing themselves.


Hans

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446543)
I like the bigger cargo bays in this frontier/rebuilding atmosphere. Why, because we might be one of the few ships that can haul that large construction equipment or agriculture equipment that those new and rebuilding worlds need.

Which would allow for some tonnage in the nooks of the ship for some speculative cargo also.

Excellent points.

This might be a good time for announcement of something that was kinda worked out in PMs. If you've read the backstory for Hampton Rhodes, you know that he "mustered out" with an A2 Far Trader when his Captain got in trouble and he promoted himself to get the heck out of Dodge. We've decided that rather than an A2, the ship that he got out of that deal was the one that y'all are currently adventuring in (probably 500 ton Frontier Freighter, by sabredog's design calculations).

This adds another layer to backstories; if any of y'all want to already be aboard ship when we start the game, you can modify your backstory to already be a crewman at the time Rhodes became Captain. This lets you all already know each other, already be serving together on the same ship at the time we begin, and avoids all of that lame "meeting in a tavern" or "recruiting new crew" stuff.

One point to consider: if you go with already being on the crew in your backstory, it means that you are from somewhere else (more civilized regions in Daibei sector, most likely) and are new to the Deep, as the journey to this area was made to get away from where the ship was likely to be recognized.

If you specifically want your character to be from one of the worlds in Reavers' Deep, then either you will need to meet up with the crew somehow after the game begins, or you could have some reason that you left the Deep, went to Daibei, got involved with this crew, and are now coming back to the Deep with them.

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446552)
Maybe something else to consider if this is a rebuilding, frontier like area

The ship has medical bay, not just a medical kit, for when we are planet side or in orbit to help out for those smaller pop worlds or the poorer ones.

The ship also carries regularly; plant seeds, medicine (in bulk) and machine/shop parts.
The ship also has a dedicated machine shop (again for planet assistance besides ship use)

Not that I want the ship to be subsidized to any government or megacorp, but as a free trader that wants to build up a solid rep, we could fill in the voids a bit.

Possibly have a few low berths for those medical emergency that need to be taken to actual hospital.

I think a med-bay, small machine shop, and some low berths are excellent ideas. Should not take a whole lot of space - med-bay and machine shop would each be about stateroom size, I think.

These are not only to do good and build reputation, but could also be money-makers, especially the ability to fix broken items on worlds that don't have the tech base to fix them themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446552)
If we are going to be dealing with Aslan or other non-human races, Can I have the prime non-alien race language as a skill-0?

I can explain why I have it at skill-0 because of my one level of xeno medic skill (Medic skill 4, 3 standard, 1 xeno)

Sounds reasonable, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "prime non-alien race language". One of the Aslan languages? I think Trokh is supposed to be most common, and used as a lingua franca, right? You can even add it at skill-1 if you want, because your guy is still at less skills than he could have gotten w Point-Buy, so adding one like this that fits the character is not excessive.

There are several sapient species native to Reavers' Deep, and I believe several variant Human races as well (at least one that I know of for sure) planted here by the Ancients. I don't believe any of these are spacefaring, except perhaps the Virushi.

The Aslan are relative newcomers on this scene, at least within the past 100 years or so. I'm still working on the backdated history, but I think the Aslan have a few worlds in the spinward area of this sector, and have extensively colonized the next sector to spinward - something w an Aslan name that I don't recall. I think they also have some areas to the south (rimward) in Magyar sector. Aslan trading ships are not exactly common in the Deep, but not too rare, either. Aslan scouting vessels, sometimes followed up by ihatei seeking land, are also occasionally encountered.

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelvss (Post 446554)
I agree, but these would be not just part of building a rep, but a source of revenue as well.

Some passenger traffic might likewise be the locals paying to bring an expert in to solve some problem.

They say that great minds think alike (I actually doubt the truth of that, because Einstein and Gandhi were both great minds, but I've never heard of Gandhi's theories on physics); so that speaks well of both of us, doesn't it? ;)

sabredog July 26th, 2013 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446591)

Re having turrets on all hardpoints: How about having three turrets from your previous working life w this ship in slightly more secure areas? That gives you something to do w money you earn out here in the Deep, getting refitted w two more turrets out here where more turrets might be more acceptable, and not raise eyebrows and suspicion that you might be pirates yourselves.


Would you want to slave all turrets to one control and have only one Gunner? Can civilian ships do that, or only military? Hmm, I'm the GM - I guess if that is usually only for military ships, that might be another refit that would be reasonable to seek out here in the Deep.

The three turrets sounds good. I think a mix of BBB, BBB, MSM would be optimal - the beam turrets would hit hard and provide anti-missile fire, and the missile turret could always be held for the desperate situations. No sense firing off missiles left and right since they cost money and doubling the lasers gets us two hits per turret.

I use a Slave Turrets program IMTU: Space=1, 2MCr. It allows a gunner in one turret to control multiple turrets at once. All turrets have to fire at the same target (missiles are the exception since they are fire and forget homing jobs) so Multi-Target cannot be used with this program. Anti-missile fire is handled normally for each turret. The gunner's expertise is halved if Gunner Interact or Predict Fire is used. (this isn't a ship equipped with military grade fire control after all)

Waddya think?

It's a quick n' dirty way to handle qualified PC shortages so as not to have to rely on NPCs for the exciting stuff. I think if we use something like this and put the live gunner in the missile turret to handle reloads of sand and missiles (Geez - I hope we don't need to reload, though...we should have skeddadled if we do), then he can slave the other two.

Of course the ideal situation would be to have at least one other gunner (even if he has to run to the bridge or drive room before jump or something) so we can engage multiple targets and get the maximum out of skills and, maybe more importantly, engage multiple targets. Oh yeah, also in case the gunner gets blasted into space when his turret is scraped off by enemy fire.

sabredog July 26th, 2013 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveChase (Post 446552)
Maybe something else to consider if this is a rebuilding, frontier like area

The ship has medical bay, not just a medical kit, for when we are planet side or in orbit to help out for those smaller pop worlds or the poorer ones.

The ship also carries regularly; plant seeds, medicine (in bulk) and machine/shop parts.
The ship also has a dedicated machine shop (again for planet assistance besides ship use)

Not that I want the ship to be subsidized to any government or megacorp, but as a free trader that wants to build up a solid rep, we could fill in the voids a bit.

Possibly have a few low berths for those medical emergency that need to be taken to actual hospital.

If we are going to be dealing with Aslan or other non-human races, Can I have the prime non-alien race language as a skill-0?

I can explain why I have it at skill-0 because of my one level of xeno medic skill (Medic skill 4, 3 standard, 1 xeno)

Dave Chase

I agree, the Launch has a cargo space perfect for stashing seeds, medical supplies, small luxury goods (toys, games, candy, booze), and all those small things we can use for establishing goodwill. We land with that and maybe start handing some of it out for free where we see the need and toss candy and toys to the kids? The expense would be small and just come from the ship's slush fund.

We could use that, too, as a way to show locals what we can bring in bulk so if they would like to place an order now that they saw the samples....?

The leftover cargo capacity on the ship is 190 tons. And I added 4 more staterooms for a total of 14. If we set aside 5 tons for a med bay, and designate 5 tons for mechanical supplies, small tools, farm machinery parts and lubricants that we try to keep stocked up no matter what the rest of the cargo we can find is then we'll be able to keep a lot of colonists in the backwoods supplied with fan belts, gears, wrenches, and penicillin. The kind of stuff that wears out and you might not be able to get off a large freighter except by the ton. The sales from these sort of incidentals would be able to self-supply that stock and help keep the medbay running.

Do you think 10 tons will do for the machine shop so we can have space for working on someone's combine or ATV, too?

I'll add 10 low berths.

That will bring the cargo capacity to 165 tons.

What does everyone think of that?

samuelvss July 26th, 2013 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446591)
Would you want to slave all turrets to one control and have only one Gunner? Can civilian ships do that, or only military? Hmm, I'm the GM - I guess if that is usually only for military ships, that might be another refit that would be reasonable to seek out here in the Deep.

If we are using HG2, then any ship can create a battery controlled by a single gunner when it is made, but not as a retrofit. A commercial design would certainly want to used batteries. Another idea is having robot gunners.

e.g.: From BALLARD ROBOTICS:

Astromech droid. Gunner and basic rescue functions.
URP: 82203-04-LQ226-PF4D(D)
TL 13, kCr 243, 278 kg 25yr note @ kCr 1.54/mo.
120 Liters Lhyd fuel gives 50 hr endurance (closed) or
500 hours endurance (open). Work stations typically have
power run to them.
All systems will typically not run simultaneously, so endurance
will typically be much greater. E.g.: Cannot walk use arms and all tools
at once.
Gunnery-4, Security-2, Mech/Elec/Med/Rescue/Commo/Ship's Boat-1

See the thread on the brains. Note that apparent intelligence is limited to the TL, so the above is limited to IntD. It is cylindrical, three legs, two medium arms, one light arm, one light tentacle.

See the discussion: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ight=astromech

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446602)
The three turrets sounds good. I think a mix of BBB, BBB, MSM would be optimal - the beam turrets would hit hard and provide anti-missile fire, and the missile turret could always be held for the desperate situations. No sense firing off missiles left and right since they cost money and doubling the lasers gets us two hits per turret.

I use a Slave Turrets program IMTU: Space=1, 2MCr. It allows a gunner in one turret to control multiple turrets at once. All turrets have to fire at the same target (missiles are the exception since they are fire and forget homing jobs) so Multi-Target cannot be used with this program. Anti-missile fire is handled normally for each turret. The gunner's expertise is halved if Gunner Interact or Predict Fire is used. (this isn't a ship equipped with military grade fire control after all)

Waddya think?

Sounds good to me. Please include that in your ship design.

sabredog July 26th, 2013 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelvss (Post 446607)
If we are using HG2, then any ship can create a battery controlled by a single gunner when it is made, but not as a retrofit. A commercial design would certainly want to used batteries.

I stuck with LBB2 because I like the greater durability of the drives. We have 3G M-Drives, but it'll take 3 hits before it degrades to 1G, and then two more before they fail. You'd only get three hits in HG. The jump drives are about the same.

And with three to five turrets we can mix and match weapons better than if we limit ourselves to batteries - which would be pretty puny given how little we can put in them at least for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelvss (Post 446607)
Another idea is having robot gunners.

e.g.: From BALLARD ROBOTICS:

Astromech droid. Gunner and basic rescue functions.
URP: 82203-04-LQ226-PF4D(D)
TL 13, kCr 243, 278 kg 25yr note @ kCr 1.54/mo.
120 Liters Lhyd fuel gives 50 hr endurance (closed) or
500 hours endurance (open). Work stations typically have
power run to them.
All systems will typically not run simultaneously, so endurance
will typically be much greater. E.g.: Cannot walk use arms and all tools
at once.
Gunnery-4, Security-2, Mech/Elec/Med/Rescue/Commo/Ship's Boat-1

See the thread on the brains. Note that apparent intelligence is limited to the TL, so the above is limited to IntD. It is cylindrical, three legs, two medium arms, one light arm, one light tentacle.

See the discussion: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ight=astromech

I thought a robot of some kind would be a good idea, too, but I don't know how that would fly in the OTU. I've been under the impression the Imperium cultures tend to distrust them as something like Zhodani use. Or is that just warbots? But I say, so long as we can keep the thing running a robot would be handy. With the Security programming it'll make a dandy addition to anti-hijack when we are away form the ship.

sabredog July 26th, 2013 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446608)
Sounds good to me. Please include that in your ship design.

Roger-dodger!

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446605)
Do you think 10 tons will do for the machine shop so we can have space for working on someone's combine or ATV, too?

Dunno if you need to devote that much space. You probably won't be wanting to actually drive the combine or ATV into the ship to work on it; just load the tools you need onto a grav pallet and have the owner drive or drag his project into a shady place like a barn or under a big tree where it is comfortable to work.

If you are thinking of needing the ship's cargo hoists to lift something heavy, that would probably be rare enough that you could just rig something as needed - or drive/drag the project into the cargo bay.

If it occurs often enough to be worthwhile, maybe invest in a manipulator (something I borrowed from H. Beam Piper) - a grav vehicle w heavy-duty gravs for lifting heavy stuff, with a heavy-duty frame to handle the loads, built-in winches and grabber-arms, and attachment points for other tools as needed. Sort of like the proverbial sky-hook; fly it into place above what you need lifted, and hoist away. Could be handy for cargo manipulation, too, in those E or X starports w no facilities.

Dunno if we could justify starting w one of these already on-board, as probably not needed often in area you are coming from, but maybe another thing to buy out here in the Deep. I never really made any stats for size or price - something like a G-Carrier in size, I guess, at double the price. Would also require extra storage space (and higher price) if you wanted optional attachments like dozer blade or backhoe (plus it really isn't as efficient a dozer as the traditional type w treads on the ground for traction). Not sure how often you'd need those options, anyway; maybe not enough to justify the expense.

sabredog July 26th, 2013 05:49 PM

Yeah, you right. I'll make the machine shop 5 tons. The ship will have a cargo lift platform on the side of the hull, and the nose swings up for roll-on, roll-off loading.

So that brings us back up to 170 tons cargo space.

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabredog (Post 446610)
I thought a robot of some kind would be a good idea, too, but I don't know how that would fly in the OTU. I've been under the impression the Imperium cultures tend to distrust them as something like Zhodani use. Or is that just warbots? But I say, so long as we can keep the thing running a robot would be handy. With the Security programming it'll make a dandy addition to anti-hijack when we are away form the ship.

Robot prejudices vary by world. There isn't really any universal culture in this setting (not even to the extent of what the Imperium has in a later era), except for maybe what remains of Vilani culture on old First Imperium worlds. The short duration and communication problems of the Second Imperium, along with all the issues of just trying to make that government work in the first place, never really left much energy for establishing any kind of cultural norms.

It seems likely to me that our campaign will be midway into the Long Night, so contact between worlds is very much a local thing, and some are completely out of contact if not near any other worlds that have retained starfaring technology.

Back to the robots: I don't think I'd go with that rule on Int=TL; that still makes some pretty smart robots, smarter than a lot of people. I see them as needing closer supervision than that, unless doing fairly repetitive tasks. There is no AI in this setting; about the closest you get to even simulating that is what is called IA, for Interface Assistant, something like the iPhone Siri that can simulate a personality for interacting with your ship's computer, for example, but really is more of an expert system and interface for giving instructions, not capable of independent thinking.

You probably would not want to entrust your ship's security to a robot, although one under control of the ship's computer could do the basic IFF and "Go away, you are not authorized. Leave now, or I may be required to use force against you." Not real intelligent for being able to make decisions it isn't programmed for.

rancke July 26th, 2013 06:02 PM

A suggestion:

If the ship is a skip, the PCs will be relieved of one major pressure, that of coming up with money to pay the bank loan. You might consider balancing that by having the ship start out very much not custom-fitted for Reaver's Deep, having spent its days up until recently jumping between civilized worlds. Early problems could then include getting the ship fitted out with guns and repair shops and such.


Hans

SpaceBadger July 26th, 2013 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancke (Post 446618)
A suggestion:

If the ship is a skip, the PCs will be relieved of one major pressure, that of coming up with money to pay the bank loan. You might consider balancing that by having the ship start out very much not custom-fitted for Reaver's Deep, having spent its days up until recently jumping between civilized worlds. Early problems could then include getting the ship fitted out with guns and repair shops and such.

Good point. We've already discussed adding more turrets, but on reflection maybe the machine shop should be save for refitting, also. Sure, the ship would already have necessary tools in the engineering section for repairs on the ship itself, but an actual repair shop such as we were discussing wouldn't really have been needed back in Daibei sector travelling in more civilized routes.

Sorry if this messes up your ship-planning, Sabredog - maybe we could just eyeball a corner of the cargo bay for adding the machine shop later?

Perhaps the ship's three existing turrets are not quite so heavily armed yet, either.

LiNeNoiSe July 27th, 2013 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446617)
Robot prejudices vary by world. There isn't really any universal culture in this setting (not even to the extent of what the Imperium has in a later era), except for maybe what remains of Vilani culture on old First Imperium worlds. The short duration and communication problems of the Second Imperium, along with all the issues of just trying to make that government work in the first place, never really left much energy for establishing any kind of cultural norms.

I believe the Solomani used robots quite a bit. There wouldn't have been much Imperial influence in Reaver's Deep, even before the Interstellar Wars.

samuelvss July 27th, 2013 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446617)
Back to the robots: I don't think I'd go with that rule on Int=TL; that still makes some pretty smart robots, smarter than a lot of people.

That is why LBB8 uses the term "apparent intelligence." It is also a maximum; that would be in the range of the "semi-independent" brains, more like a couple of MCr a piece. The example I gave was more like an apparent intel of 4, IIRC. This is gone over in detail in that other thread, but suffice it to say apparent intelligence is really only deals with the robot brain's ability to master that which it is trained to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446617)
I see them as needing closer supervision than that, unless doing fairly repetitive tasks. There is no AI in this setting; about the closest you get to even simulating that is what is called IA, for Interface Assistant, something like the iPhone Siri that can simulate a personality for interacting with your ship's computer, for example, but really is more of an expert system and interface for giving instructions, not capable of independent thinking.

They make good gunners, mechanics, and second (or third and fourth) engineers. IMTU, there always has to, by law and sound procedure, be a "human in the loop." Where there are protocols, checklists and fire commands, they do well. They suck as poets, or even decent stewards. I wouldn't put a 'bot "in charge" of anything, but they are powerful tools.

SpaceBadger July 27th, 2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNeNoiSe (Post 446663)
There wouldn't have been much Imperial influence in Reaver's Deep, even before the Interstellar Wars.

Well, if by "Imperial" you mean Vilani... then yes, there was, on the worlds colonized by the Vilani.

As I said before:
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger
There isn't really any universal culture in this setting (not even to the extent of what the Imperium has in a later era), except for maybe what remains of Vilani culture on old First Imperium worlds. The short duration and communication problems of the Second Imperium, along with all the issues of just trying to make that government work in the first place, never really left much energy for establishing any kind of cultural norms.

So, no uniform culture across the sector, but individual worlds certainly had cultural influence from the culture that colonized them. The History of Known Space tells us that the last wave of Vilani colonization ended around -3500 (using Third Imperium dating system). There are several Vilani worlds (judging by world names) in Nightrim subsector of Reavers' Deep (plus a few scattered elsewhere), and since this is some of the farthest extents of Vilani colonization, I'd say they were probably colonized towards the end of the Vilani colonization period, around -3700 to -3500.

That gives those worlds over 1000 years under the static, monocultural Ziru Sirka before there was any contact w Terrans, so I'd say they were pretty thoroughly Vilani in culture.

And since I am not aware of any canon to contradict that, that is the way they are in this game.

The Terran colonization in Reavers' Deep sector began during the Interstellar Wars, as refugees sought new homes and the Terran Confederation military sought strategic advantage by flanking the concentration of Vilani military closer to Terra. These colonizations would have been in the period from -2400 to -2200.

Then I expect there would have been some continued colonizations during the Rule of Man, both from Terra and possibly from Daibei sector (formerly Vilani but now part of the Rule of Man). These would have been in the period from -2200 to -1776.

I doubt that there was much colonization from outside the sector after the collapse of the Rule of Man; most colonization in Reavers' Deep during the Long Night would be from established worlds within the sector, and possibly from Daibei sector, plus the beginning of Aslan colonization from rimward and spinward.

So these worlds are a mixed bag, but individual worlds certainly have cultural influences showing the origins of their people.

SpaceBadger July 27th, 2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelvss (Post 446677)
They make good gunners, mechanics, and second (or third and fourth) engineers. IMTU, there always has to, by law and sound procedure, be a "human in the loop." Where there are protocols, checklists and fire commands, they do well. They suck as poets, or even decent stewards. I wouldn't put a 'bot "in charge" of anything, but they are powerful tools.

Hmm. Assistant mechanics, assistant engineers, OK, that makes sense. Gunners, I can't really see - if a robot/computer brain is doing the gunnery, why have a robot instead of just letting the ship's computer handle it? That's like the Trade Federation having battle droids driving tanks - why not just put a robot brain in the tank itself? (No, I don't really want to go into the age-old debate of why even have human gunners at all. It's just part of Traveller. :) Same thing for why we have human pilots and navigators.) And although they lack the "people skills" of a good steward, I can easily see robots delivering room service on passenger liners.

atpollard July 27th, 2013 03:32 PM

Mongoose Traveller has Repair Bots that might be able to serve as an extra engineer (to assist the human, not replace all ship's engineers). I don't remember the TL details, but it shoud port almost effortlessly to CT.

samuelvss July 27th, 2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceBadger (Post 446697)
Gunners, I can't really see - if a robot/computer brain is doing the gunnery, why have a robot instead of just letting the ship's computer handle it?

Two reasons: canon, and flexibility. In CT, a droid with a ship computer can do things a ship's computer cannot. Starships are made to be operated by humans because, in some respects they're cheaper. I say "some respects," because when you take into account MCr .5 for the stateroom, the droid starts to look cheap. In CT, turrets have to be reloaded. Things break, they need arms and tools to fix. An unconscious character can be patched up and drug to the lifeboat by a droid, but not by the ship's computer.

The astromechs are specifically meant to be able to manipulate human controls, because in canon starships are designed with such. Droids can be bought, sold, traded, turned off and stowed. IMTU, I have tried to accord LBB8 and LBB2/5. Certainly not the only approach. Droids end up doing for sophants IMTU, subject to cultural restrictions, what various domesticated animals have done for humans since the dawn of time. I think this is a good breaking point: certain animals (most, really) are not subject to domestication. Lions would make great watchdogs, but they do not take to subjugation like dogs; I think that in some ways, it is rational to accept a OTU where any droids not subject to complete human control are unacceptable.

SpaceBadger July 29th, 2013 08:53 PM

New Blog Post: Progress on Backdating the Setting

Our setting date is -790 Pre-Imperial; read the blog post for why I chose that date and other related info.

There are also some new blog posts related to equipment and houserules, all indexed from the [SBRD] Table of Contents.

Expected date to actually begin play is around 8th or 9th of August.


*

SpaceBadger July 29th, 2013 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuelvss (Post 446714)
Two reasons: canon, and flexibility. In CT, a droid with a ship computer can do things a ship's computer cannot. Starships are made to be operated by humans because, in some respects they're cheaper. I say "some respects," because when you take into account MCr .5 for the stateroom, the droid starts to look cheap. In CT, turrets have to be reloaded. Things break, they need arms and tools to fix. An unconscious character can be patched up and drug to the lifeboat by a droid, but not by the ship's computer.

The astromechs are specifically meant to be able to manipulate human controls, because in canon starships are designed with such. Droids can be bought, sold, traded, turned off and stowed. IMTU, I have tried to accord LBB8 and LBB2/5. Certainly not the only approach. Droids end up doing for sophants IMTU, subject to cultural restrictions, what various domesticated animals have done for humans since the dawn of time. I think this is a good breaking point: certain animals (most, really) are not subject to domestication. Lions would make great watchdogs, but they do not take to subjugation like dogs; I think that in some ways, it is rational to accept a OTU where any droids not subject to complete human control are unacceptable.

Sounds reasonable to me.. LBB8 is one of the few that I never bought, but I think I recall some robot rules in MT and MgT, both of which I have but have never played or studied extensively. Do you know if those rules are similar to LBB8? We probably want to keep robot designs fairly uniform, or at least made using similar rules, so if LBB8 is different I may be leaning on you some for that.

SpaceBadger July 30th, 2013 02:25 AM

Added a new blog post on Drama Points to the Houserules section.

I realize that the use of Drama Points is unfamiliar or controversial for some. However, I think it is important for the Light Cinematic level of realism that we agreed on for this campaign. Please read the blog post, and if you have suggestions or questions, please comment in the blog post, so we can have all the discussion in one place. I would like to get this worked out to something that is satisfactory to most of us in this campaign, before we get started. I will make the final rules decision as GM, but I would like to accommodate the viewpoints of everyone in this campaign as much as possible, so please, let's talk about it!

SpaceBadger July 30th, 2013 03:43 AM

I've been thinking about the drop tanks on the Fortunate Son, and I see a few limitations to consider.

Sabredog, I love the design the way you have it, including the drop tanks, so please don't change that!

However, 1) I don't think the previous Captain of the Close Call (does he have a name yet?) sounds like the kind of guy who would have carried the drop tanks when he didn't need them; and 2) drop tanks would interfere w streamlining and prevent the ship from landing on any world w Thin or greater atmosphere (good thing you have a Launch!); and 3) drop tanks w jump grids to allow them to be carried along in Jump rather than dropped are probably not so common.

So, 1) you don't have drop tanks attached at the start of play; and 2) you can buy drop tanks later, as they are pretty common in the Deep; and 3) you will either need to have custom work done (or do it yourselves) to add jump grids to standard drop tanks, or else get lucky or go on a "quest" to find some suitable drop tanks w jump grids already installed (it is uncommon, but not unheard of).

Still, the ability to do two J-2 without refueling on the standard tanks that you already have is nothing to sneeze at.

Again, great job on the ship design by Sabredog, and I'm sure we are all eager to see deckplans when time permits. :)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.